80 Dr. Francis HaurrToN's Commentary 
the case in this instance with Plukenet (Alm. 277.), who adopts 
the name given by Ray, Palma montana folio plicatile flabelliformi 
maximo, semel tantum frugifera: nor does he quote any syno- 
nyma except the Hortus Malabaricus. 
The elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 181.) borrowed from Hermann 
the name Palma zeylanica, folio longissimo et latissimo, by no 
means so characteristic as that of Ray ; for, as I have said, in 
its full growth the leaves are not remarkably larger than those 
of the Borassus. 
Rumphius (Herb. Amb. 1.44.) compared the leaves of the Codda 
Panna with those of his Saribus, but says ‘ verum tantum differt 
ut diversa sit habenda species." (See my Commentary on the 
Herbarium Amboinense.) Notwithstanding what Rumphius had 
properly observed, Linnæus in the Flora Zeylanica (394.) joined 
the Saribus with the Codda Panna to form his Corypha : but it 
was probably the latter that he meant to describe, as we have no 
reason to believe that the Saribus is found in Ceylon. In the 
Species Plantarum and Burman's Flora Indica (240.) no change 
took place, except giving to the Corypha the specific name um- 
braculifera, and without any good reason omitting some of the 
synonyma. Geertner continued the error; nor do I know which 
- of the fruits he described. 
After this long continuance of error, the difference between 
the Saribus and Codda Panna was pointed out by M. Lamarck ` 
(Enc. Meth. ii. 130.), who considered the latter as the Corypha 
umbraculifera, and in this has been followed Spon Willdenow. (Sp. 
Pi. n. .201.) 
Nri Panna, p. 7. 
. There is no figure of this plant, and the description is so im- 
perfect that little dependence can be placed on such conjectures 
as I can offer. It is probably a palm growing in or close by the 
rivers of Malabar; and as the description says, “ folia Palme 
foliis, 
